The Current International Security Environment

From the time when the first English colonies were established in North America until now, there has been some form of armed fighting force in place to protect the interests of the United States and its colonial progenitors. During the roughly four centuries in which this fighting force has existed, it has undergone numerous changes of varying degrees of significance. Technological advances have changed the nature of both defensive and offensive warfare, political advances have changed the nature of the relationship between the civilian population and its protectors, and geostrategic shifts have changed the role of the United States military with respect to the rest of the world. The most lasting and meaningful changes have occurred

With Trump’s election this year, his rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” and therefore revitalizing our military will soon become a reality. Trump has formally requested a reappropriation of funds; around $54 Billion, towards the US military. Part of Trump’s campaign promises had to do with making the military more robust; ensuring America’s title of militarily strongest in the world. In order to achieve this goal. Trump’s federal government has the option of many different aspects of the military to focus on. Of these, funding weapons of mass destruction, cyber security, and further military research and development prove themselves as most relevant in the contemporary military.

The threat environment has expanded from a strategic, nuclear, symmetrical threat from bombers, ICBMs, and air-or-sea-launched cruise missiles, to a continuing symmetrical threat in addition to an emergent asymmetric threat, focused across all domains, borders and agencies. Accordingly, our political leaders recognized a need to transform the military for a new ‘home game’. United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established to assume responsibility for the defence of the US homeland, and this new Command was tasked to provide military assistance to civil authorities (MACA).

While a commander’s staff conducts planning at any level, whether it is strategic, operational, or tactical, the importance of identifying both theirs and the adversary’s center of gravity (COG) is a critical part of the planning process. Three factors should be carefully analyzed in order to gain a full understanding of the COG; they are critical capabilities, critical requirements and critical vulnerabilities (U.S. Office of the CJCS 11 August 2011, III-24). Although a COG can be attacked directly, the indirect approach which seeks to destroy or neutralize the COG by attacking an adversary’s critical vulnerabilities can be a more efficient use of available resources. The United States Marine Corps’ Warfighting publication MCDP 1 draws a direct correlation between a COG and its critical vulnerability by stating, “we should focus our efforts against a critical vulnerability, a vulnerability that, if exploited, will do the most significant damage to the enemy 's ability to resist us” (United States Marine Corps 1997, 47). The Marine Corps favors the indirect approach to defeating an adversary’s COG because the functions assigned to them by the Department of Defense (DoD) require expeditionary operations and expeditionary forces typically are limited in size, assets, and resources driving them to target an adversary’s critical vulnerabilities.

Despite the complexity of this environment and fiscal austerity, the JF25 must “protect our Nation and win our wars.” It must deter and defeat state adversaries, disrupt and defeat terrorist organizations, and strengthen the global network of allies and partners.” The prioritized capabilities required for Joint Force 2025 are linked to the imperatives of securing the homeland and maintaining strategic agility. This essay discusses general attributes of the JF, specific capability requirements by service, and the risk associated with focusing the rebalance on these two imperatives.

The purpose of this white paper is to highlight current mobility requirements that have dictated the operational philosophy shift that will require the continuous utilization of the Guard and Reserve to accomplish its missions. We will discuss the personnel requirements in order to accomplish future missioning. It will also briefly discuss the fiscal relevance that these new force structure and operational requirements while reviewing the full time mobilization positions that are strategically positioned at the right functional level.

In 1958, as the United States Government sought to reorganize its defense establishment, President Dwight D. Eisenhower argued that “separate ground, sea and air warfare is gone forever. If ever again we should be involved in war, we will fight in all elements, with all services, as one single concentrated effort.” Eisenhower based his assessment on his experiences as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, but his insight has had a tremendous influence on the way that the armed services fight. Today the armed services operate as a joint force, yet each service provides important capabilities, some of which are unique to that service alone. Through law, Congress has assigned certain roles to each service. These are the “broad

“As we transition, we will change how we organize, man, equip and train our force to be more responsive…so we can better enable the Joint Force of 2020” (Odierno, 2015, p. NA). This is an important statement because it not only highlights necessity for change, but signals the importance

The security environment today is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA). The challenges presented by globalization, emerging powers as well as the continuing threat of terrorism indicate the future security environment will continue to gain complexity. Adding to this complexity is the challenge of increasingly constrained fiscal resources. To protect U.S. National Security interests in this complex and constrained environment, Joint Force 2025 (JF-2025) requires four core capabilities, it must be agile, adaptable, survivable and integrated. Supporting these capabilities requires proper balancing of the Joint Force. This essay discusses the impending environment, key strategic direction for JF-2025, the capabilities required by

Because of these build downs, The United States military has reduced its strength by about a third of what it was in 1985.  Despite this reduction in military strength,  U.S. military deployment has gone up a third (Kaminski 1).  This does not make good sense.  Just because the Soviet Union has crumbled does not mean that all of America's worries have faded away.  There are new threats that have replace the terror of Russia.  These include regional aggressors such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran (Federation of American Scientists 1).  Regional conflicts among these lesser powers have grown in importance because of the invention nuclear weapons of mass destruction.  Since the breakup of the Soviet union, the market has been flooded with inexpensive military arms.  Some of these arms have found their way into regional conflicts (Sandler 2).  The possibility of another World War can not be dismissed from the possibilities as well. The world still contains potential dangers for the U.S., and a strong military must be in place for any of these threats.

Today’s security environment is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA). The challenges presented by globalization, emerging powers as well as the continuing threat of terrorism indicate the future security environment will continue to gain complexity. Adding to this complexity is the challenge of increasingly constrained fiscal resources. To protect U.S. National Security interests in this complex and constrained environment, Joint Force 2025 (JF-2025) requires four core capabilities, it must be agile, adaptable, survivable and integrated. This essay discusses the key strategic direction for JF-2025, the capabilities required of the Joint Force, each member services and the inherent associated risks.

The general capabilities of joint force 2025 I believe necessary to rebalance the force based on the current strategic direction, and global security environment is the global surveillance and strike (GSS) network, increased naval and air investments and increased investment in cyber technology. The GSS system would allow the U.S. military to strike quickly and remain engaged for increased periods of time while additional forces are moved to the area of concern. Naval and air investments are critical. The Navy and Air Force allows us to project power to areas of the world far from our base of operations. Air power also enables us to provide support for ground forces and deterrence and denial of enemy forces. Cyber investments are critical because cyber technology will increasingly be the engine that runs our future military and allows us to attack adversary’s cyber networks and infrastructure.

There will be significant challenges facing the United States in the next 10 years regarding strategic threats and global security. The three overlapping types of conflicts which will dictate future wars, challenge government agencies, and force all branches of the Armed Forces to restructure their formations are “Wars of Silicon, Iron, and Shadow.” The four U.S. Services will need to rebalance, be adaptive, implement strategic agility, and reprioritize their programs to meet specific security issues posed by these conflicts. “Diverse adversaries will employ traditional, unconventional, and hybrid strategies to threaten U.S. National Security.” Joint Forces by 2025 will need to be leaner, technologically superior, and expeditionary to support Combatant Commanders so; they can win in full spectrum operations and defend U.S. national interests at home and overseas. “These new and adaptive Defense strategies will require making profound choices due to budget constraints and Sequestration.” There are significant risks associated with these choices, which will require implementing stringent control measure to mitigate those risks.

Clausewitz defines war as an “act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” The nature of war is enduring yet the character of war changes over time. Current US strategic guidance is advancing the point of view that since the character of war has changed to focus on irregular wars then the US military should prepare for a future of irregular wars. This shift in focus forgets that the nature of war is enduring and in order to be successful, we must prepare for all types of conflict. This paper will define the types of conflict and the likelihood of each followed by a discussion of US strategic guidance and ending with an analysis of the training resources and force structure requirements needed to achieve success for all types of

As highlighted, the JMMLV will provide the Joint Forces and its partners a tremendous capability to rapidly respond to a crisis that requires speed and agility to meet mission requirements. As history has proven, there will be a time and place when the United States and the Joint community will be required to respond to a global contingency operation in support of the Geographic Combatant Commander’s mission. The expeditionary theater opening capability that the JMMLV brings to the fight will provide vital resources to support operational needs in a timely and efficient manner. Furthermore, a strategically prepositioned JMMLV could respond to a crisis within six days of a catastrophic event that requires the United States support. Additionally, the JMMLV is in line with the vision and guidance from the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO): Joint Force 2020 published in 2012 which states: “As a nation with global responsibilities, the forces of the United States must be able to operate effectively anywhere in the world on short notice.” (Joint Staff 2012) With buy-in from the Secretary of Defense, Joint community, DOD Services, Federal Agencies, Department of State, Coalition Partners, and Non-governmental agencies, the JMMLV will enable the United States to meet operational requirements in a timely and efficient manner anywhere in the world on short notice.